80 Ethics " Sao. sncy the belief that all short people oo ane pes Soe Be mse mem .— Bele a 7 os just because of their skin coloz”? aaa Se 1 ciated and “relewantly similar”? (7.5) a —— SEE ae ce wp Epo c amstae etna x ee a 18 ‘but wrong for you to kill me, because I have six toes and: you don’t”? * Saree oe jectivism, supernaturalism, and intuitionismn? (7.6) " 7.9 For further study To solidify your understanding, do. the ex Ty soy one unde EehiCola exercise (ee Preface) for ‘This chapter is a condensed cad simpli ; and simplified version of Chapters 1 t0 4 of Ge rel Et; ee this for farther details. Genders “Ethics is based ea” ad aa cit version of the view. Many ofthe ideas wee aces Fredom and Rearon and Kant’s Growndaerk ofthe Metapls Monat. The Bibliography at the end of se Mor Te Bibogapy at the book has information oa how t0 8 The Golden Rule GR Theorem: GR forbids this combination: something to another. ‘m unwilling that this be done +o me in the same situation. ‘Treat others only as you | * consent to being treated in the same situation. “The golden mule requires that we treat others only as we consent to being treated in the same situation, GR is che most important principle in this book: tnd peshaps the most important rue of life. GR follows from the consistency requirements of our previous chapter. Applying GR sequires further elemenss, like knowiedge and imagination, that we'll discuss in the next chapter. 81 AGR theorem ‘Our GR theorem is expressed in two ways at che top of the page. To apply GR, you imagine yourself in the other person’s place on the receiving end of the action. If you act in a given way toward another and yet are unwilling to be ‘treated that way in the same siniation, then you violate the rule. Here's an example, President Kennedy appealed to the goliea rule in an anti-segregation speech during the frst black enrollment at the University of ‘Alabama. He asked whites to consider what it would be like to be treated as second-class citizens because of skin color, They were to imagine themselves being black—and being told that becaus is they couldn't vote, go to the bese public schools, eat at most public restaurants, or sit in the front of the bus. ‘Would whites be content to be treated that way? He was sure they woulda’s, yet this is how they treated others. He said the “heart of the question is whether we are going to treat our felow Americans as we want to be treated.” ‘To apply the golden rule, we need to kaw what effect our actions have on the lives of others. And we need to imagine ourselves, vividly and accurately, in the other person's place on the receiving end of the action. When combined ‘with knowledge and imagination, GR is a powerful tool of mozal thinking, GRis a consistency principle. It doesa’t replace zegular moral norms. It isn’t weseribes consistency— st of harmony with our82. Ethies GR follows from conscientiousness and impantiality. Suppose that you want to steal Dettas bicycle. And suppose chat you's conscientious (keep your sexions and desires in harmony with your mozal belief) and impaztal (make similar evaluations about similar actions). Thea you won't steal her bicycle unless you're also willing that your bicycle be stolen in the same situation. This chart shows the steps in the desivation: ‘You steal S You believe it would Dera’s | oo ceceation be allright for you bicycle * | to steal her bieyeie WY impasial ‘You're willing You believe it would that your bieyele € be allright for your bestolea in the | conscientious | bieyele to be stolen in same situation the same sination Here's 2 less graphical version of the argument. If we're conscientious and ‘impartial, then ‘We won't do something to another unless we believe that this act ‘would be all sight. ‘We won't believe that this act would be all right unless we believe that ‘it would be all sight for this to be done to us in the same sinuation. ‘We won't believe that it would be allright for this to be done to us in ‘the same situation unless we're willing thar this be done to us in the ‘same situation. + We won't do something to another unless we'te willing that this be done to us in the same situation. So if we're conscientious and impartial, then we'll follow GR: we won't do something to another unless we're willing that it be done to us in the same situation. But we've assumed (Chapter 7) chat we aught to be conscientious and impartial. Te follows that we night to follow GR: we cnght to treat others only as ‘we consent to being treated in the same situation, So our GR isn't « basic principle. Instead, it’s provable from the coasciea- lousness and impartiality requirements. Our GR is a sheorem—something provable from principles that are more basic. ‘Lets compare our GR with prescriptivism’s GR (ection 6.3), which also holds on our approach: Prucrptviom's GR says that this combination is inconsistent: believe that I onght to do something to another, and (b) desire that this be done to me in the same situation. ‘The Golden Rule 83 wes al ech meget oe Ser rae gots ea Tee 8.2 The literal rule Testes 8 People ssally formule the golen sin smple ways, lke "Test ethan be weed Ihe ake tar forming we pt he es fplden le LR): Literal Golden Rule: If you want X to do something to ‘you, then do this same thing to X. LR has no same-situation clause and tells what specific act to do Gastead of forbidding an action-desie combination). ik okga worta wel Soppore you want Suzy to be Kad 0 yous a tells you to be kind to hes. Or suppose you want Tom not to hurt you (oF 10 fos, or be inconsdesete to you) then you ae ne to do these tings 0 him ‘These applications seem sensible. But LR can lead to absurdities in two types of case. Fst, ou may be ina difiren station from X: + Tos psiear you wert doco to remove ou append, hen roots i decors speci «ESTE eyo loves eo Sighe Ion wnt our ate tik you ten ag vie ° «RESPECT you win our ld no 0 pu yoo hen doe putin Second, you may have deriv dese about how you are to be tested: | To one who desires to be hated: If you want others t0 hate you, ‘then hate them. LR leads to absurdities because its wording is wrong. | (GRvs same-tituon clause avoids the frst kindof objection. Consies this ard of hearing); but I don't want him is sensible, it isuation. LR says: “If you want others to treat you in a given way in your ‘this is how you are to treat them—even if their situation.84 Ethics With GR, Pd ask how I desite chat Pd be treated sion as my father (and thus hard of heating). I desize sitsaton then people would speak: loudly to me. So F We can take “Same sitation” here imagine ysltn ny fer ‘lan (val bis propre) TF iagine mpl bavog Droperies of my her cha being had of hedng that Tink se of mage Be eg howl one sould sek tn Ee pach “The sumesinaon cane is also important forthe appendix case, Recall that Lt wold the pent co remo the doctors append The sue situation clause would block this, since the patent clear doesnt dese that fhe werent the plce of is doctor (vith a heaty appends), ten ii append be removed bya sek paien ignorant of medicine In apling GR, we need 0 tsk he fis querdon ot the second Am Lnow willog that if r 7 sweie in the same situation this be me (a then this be done to me? ct situa)? The other person's situation includes likes and dislikes. So if you're a waiter ‘who hates spinach, but whose customer likes and orders it, you imagine being served spinach in an imagined situation where you like and order it. of his sister (who is terrorized by fighting) and ask “Am I willing chat in her place then I be fought with in this way?” Since the answer is ‘wouldn's fight with his sister. ed to be careful about something else. GR is about our pratt rection to 4 bypotherical eat. Ie isn’t about how we would react if we were in the hypotheti- cal case. Again, we have to ask the first question, not the second: Am Laow willing hat if 1 i in the s m ‘were in the same sivation tion, woul be willing then this be done to me? ‘be done trme2 ‘The difference here is important but subtle. Let me ty to claify it Suppose I have a two-year-old son, little Willy, who keeps putting his fingers into electrical outlets. I try to discourage him from doing this, but aothing works. Finally, I decide that I need to spank him whea he does it I want to see if can spank him without violating GR. In determining this, I should ask the £Btst question, not the second: ‘The Golden Rule 85 AmLnow willing hat in Willys phe if were in Willys place inthe ation, inthe same situation woul g then I be spanked? “o be spanked? ‘This has “willing thacif” I’s This has “if” before “willing.” about my present adult desire Ie’s about the desire Pd toward a hypothetical case. Ihave as a small child. ‘With the first question, I imagine the case in the following box: Pm a two-year-old child I pur my fingers into elec! cues, and ce ony thing that wil sop sme is @ spanking, As a two-year old, I don’t under- stand electricity and so I desire not to be spanked. ‘Asan ad T say “Tm dee tha if T wees in hi sation then T be spared” Tight tay pens spanked me in soch Tit cyeasbough Tweet pleted then.” Th an spa my cd without Stealing GR, nace Pm wing ta would have been eed the me wy in She sare aoa, Suh cies hand 1 were in Wily’ place and dhs judged tings fom a woyearoll maul, thon Ta dese not t be spanked. Ta’ what the owcakoue question about If we foumuated GR sing tis, then Pbk Spusked Wily Bu this is bord. We ned to formulate GR corect, ‘Grea Sy present eacon to a hpotheical case. Lean stafy GR becase Tov as an ada wllag tat 1 would have ben pated in this sturton "Ths pint a subde br of cent importance Ifyou doa get the ies, I sogget fou eread the Ew purngap a ew dines unlit comes through. "Fs dntion cuca when we dea with someone who is veyron arch cso dy ele ot ina coupon rd ‘rts fo ive home despite beng drunk, confused, and incapable of Gintap Vou tll hi he cant ave home—and you'e wing ha i the ad you were dew and confixed) then you be wld ng OR tots cave, you need atk the fit quesson, not the second: Am now willing that re dean an if were drunk and coa- fased, Tehen fased then I be told that be 0 Bevald that Tcaanot drive home? Gonnot drive hom—_—_—_—>;>[—[—[—[[—[—[—[—_—~—[—~—[TS—~—>T—~" 86 Ethics toward a hypothetical case. To use GR comecty, say “Lam willing that if"; don't say “I sould be willing.” Let me sum up. Recal thatthe literal golden rule LR can lead to absurdities in wo ways. Fist, you might bein a diferent situation from the other person. We ‘can get around this by including a same-simation clause and being carefil to ask the cozzect question. Second, you may have deve derins about how you are to be treated. LR can tell a person with defective desires to do evil things. For example, it can tell someone who desires hatred to hate others. Here we'll consider a simpler case that shows why we need to take GR not as a direct, guide to action but rather a5 prescribing consistency between our actions (Coward anothet) and our desires (about a reversed-situation action). ‘Imagine this case, We own a very profitable coal mine but act wrongly in paying our workers only a miserly $1 a day. People ask if we'se willing to be paid only $1 a day in their place. We answer “jes” and thus ace consistent. But ‘we answer “yes” only because we think (incorrect tolerably on this amount. If we knew how lite : “yes.” So our action isn't flawed because it’s inconsistent; instead it's awed because it's misinformed. So we need to correct our view of the facts. In the coal-mine case, we satisfy GR-consistency but act wrongly, because we're misinformed. This shows that we shoulda’t take GR by itself as an infallible guide on sight and wrong. Properly understood, GR doesn’t tell us what specific action to take; instead, it forbids inconsistent combinations Formally, GRis a coasistency principle that forbids a cersin combination: ‘© Ido something to another. € Don't ‘© Tm unwilling that this be done combine to me in the same situation, © tnese, ‘Te we take the golden rule to be an if-then, telling us to do a specific action if wwe have a given desie about how we are co be tated, chen it may command bad actions when we have defective desires Here’s another example. Electra gives other people severe eleccrical shocks. And she’s willing that she be shocked that way in their place—because she jgnorantly chinks that these shocks are very pleasant. She can’t be faulted for violating GR consistency; but she can be faulted for not getting her facts straight, To lead reliably to zight action, GR needs to be combined with factual knowledge and imagination, But even if we're misinformed, GR doesa’t tell us to do specific wrong actions—becanse GR doesn’t tell us to do specific actions at alls inscead, it forbids certain inconsistent combinations. (Our GR formulation has thtee key features © a samesiuation claose, ¢ a present attitude coward a hypothetical simation, and © a don'tcombine form. The Golden Rule 87 We need these features to avoid absurd implications and to insure that GR is decivable from conscientiousness and impartiality. 8.3 Masochists ‘The liveral golden rule LR can tell 2 person with defective desizes to do evil things, For example it can cell a masochist who wants to be tortured to corse another: “If you want X to torture you, then torture X.” This is perhaps the most difficult objection to the golden nie. Tn dealing with masochis cases, we need a three-fold attack: 1. We need to have the masochist imagine himself in the same situation as the other person (who typically isn’t a masochist). 2, Weneed some way to exticize irrational desires. 3. We need co recall that out GR forbids an inconsistent action~desize combination—and doesn’t tell us what specific act to do. 1, Suppose that Ima Masochist is consideting whether to torture X, who is ‘not a masochist. To apply GR, Ima should ask: “Am I willing that if were in the exact place of noamasochist X then T be tortured?” ‘Typical masochists desire physical or emotional pain because this brings some sort of satisfaction (perhaps of a sexual, religious, or athletic nature). Ler’s suppose that Ima Masochist is a boxer and considers himself to be a “ough uy”; he gets satisfaction from how much abuse he can endure, whether in the boxing ring or elsewhere. Now Ima wouldn't get this satisfaction if he were in the place of nonmasochist X. So to be tortured in nonmasochist Xs place ‘would bring ausanted pain. So very likely Ima won’ be willing that he ‘be tornuted if he were in nonmasochist X°s place. Thus it’s important to insist on +s suppose that Ima isa’ a ypical masochist, as described above. thatzed. He hates himself so muck chat hhe wants to be corcured in his present situation and in any imagined situation Tima is deranged. Maybe we could use rational means to counter his selé-hatred: wwe ty to get lima to understand himself better (including the source of his hatred), appreciate his self-worth, and experience positive ways of living. If he developed & love for himself, thea GR could extend this love-of-slf to love-of- others, (The next chapter says more about how to cttcize irrational desires) 3, Les now suppose that Ima Masochist resists having his sel-hated rationally criticized. Ima, pechaps because he has been givea a self-hasred dug, ‘wants to be rorcured in bis present situation and in any imagined situation— tnd he totally resists rational criticism of his sel-hasred. Ima vorcures X and sires that if he were in X’s place then he be similarly eomuzeds 3¢ satisfies recall, doesn’t* To something to another. € Don't 'm unwilling that this be done combine to me in the same situation, «© ee Unlike the literal golden rule, GR doesn’t assume that our desires about how ‘we are to be treated ate fine and give us a good guide on how to treat others GR oaly forbids inconsistencies and so doesn’ tel Ima to torture X. Our coal-mine and Electra eas follow GR, bat still act wrongiy. Iso showed that we can be consistent and can happen if we'se ignorant about how our actions affect others or if our desires are defective. So consistency isn't enough. GR gives 2 useful tool for criticizing cestain inconsistent attinades. But ‘we may also need other tools of cxiticism. GR works best when combined with other factors, such as knowledge, imagination, and rationalized desires, 8.4 GR questions (Ql) Is the golden roe widely accepted? ‘Yes. Many endorse GR and pot it at che heatt of their moral thinking. For example, professionals often use explain their responsibilities toward others. So a thoughtfal aurse might say, “I uy to teat my patents as Pd waat to be treated in their place.” Many in education, business, or government say simila things. ‘The golden rule has wide support among the various religions and cultures of the world. Jesus Christ, Confucius, and Rabbi Hillel all used the mule 10 summarize cheir teachings. Bahé', Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, and other world religions support GR, a8 do secular thinkers from diverse cultures. Many of these give the rule a central status in moral thinking. GR is close to being a global principles norm common to all peoples ofall times. GR, with roots in a wide range of world culeutes, is well suited to be a stan- ard that different culnures can appeal to in resolving conflicts. As the world becomes more and more 4 single interacting global community, the need fot such « common standard is becoming mote urgent. (Q2) How does “Love your neighbor” selate to GR? “Love your neighbor” is about motivation, while GR is a key element in ‘ational (Consistent-iaformed-imaginative) moral thinking. The two ideas, while not equivalent, work well gether, “Love your neighbor” tells us to act out of a genuine concern for others. If ‘we love others, we're motivated to ‘The Golden Rule 89 because we cate about others for their own sake. This brings vs closer to moral rerfection. In this way, GR needs love. Pessot love also needs GR. Let’ say that you love others this is fine, but how do you apply this ove? GR gives « workable way to transite love into action. "To love your neighbor in the GR way, follow these three steps: |. Know your neighbor as wellas you can. 2 TRUESEEEP pce ge aon, a wily ad accurately as you can : 3, Act wwe you neighbor oly ia ways that your wing tbe tucated in the same situation. love your children in the GR way, for example, you'll make 2 great Wtaow wal unerstad them Gachuding their needs and desires). Youll put {ourself in their place and try to imagine what thet lives ae ike for them. And Soul teat them only in ways that you're willing to be treated yourself by @ cain the same satin, see a (Or suppose that the coal-mine owner becomes a conves 7 acighbor and decides to run his mine by she geen le, Wa wos he €0? Fast he'd learn about how his compaay impacts de lives of otber people especialy the workers, but also neighbors and customers. What are their problems and issues, and how are they affected by how the company is runt ‘Thea he'd apply imagination. He'd imapic himself a¢ a wotker(aboring under certain conditions for a certain salary), or pehaps as 2 next-door neighbor (ith black smoke coming into is house). Aad then he'd ask the GR question: Am I willing that if T were in that situation then Pd be treated that ws’ (Q3) Isthe golden mule the summary ofall morality? This depends on how we take principle that always tells us what do this. Forms that directly guide Popedy imerpced, he golden a tnatnd, forbes conse sods compre with pingples Uke "e's wong Chater masiinesenjopmene” GR opt Te glen nit cps ered rls cI engages Oo i eet eownnnce sl-cenercinse Aad fe eoncrey appis el ‘Cf concum So GR makes good one seaeace summary of whit cet. fain (Qé) Ts GR the same as “Treat others as they teat you"? ough the two are often confused. “Treat others as they treat you” ee ee who do good to you—and to harm those who90 Ethics harm you. This can lead to sevenge and retaliation. Young children, when they Jean the golden rue, often misuaderstand it to say “Treat others as they teat yon. If someone hits you, then hit him back” They regard this approach as fi. ‘Wiser people see that this leads to endless revenge—and so they prefer che golden rule. (Q5) Is GR the same as “Treat others as they want to be treated” (he platinum rule)? No. The platinum rule can presexibe evil actions. Suppose that Ds. Evil ‘wants me to help him to destroy the world; then platinum tells me to help Dr. Evil to destroy the world. And platinum can presctibe self-contradictioas, Suppose that che Democrat wants me to vote for her and not for the Republi- ‘can-—and the Republican wants me to vote for ‘ot for the Democrat GR, if formulated property, ciple. GR sometimes per- ‘mits us to act against the will of another—as in the case of two-year-old Willy of Section 8.2, who doesa’t want to prevented from putting his fingers in the lectical outiet. (Q6) Isn't the GR theorem too subtle and difficult for normal people to understand? Te does have subtle aspects. We need these to avoid the objections and to show that the goldea sule is defensible. Less sophisticated people can always fall back on the very simple literal golden rule. (QX) Suppose you live in a ruthless “dog-eat-dog” society, where everyone takes advantage of everyone else. Wouldn’t people take advantage of you if you followed the golden rule? Not necessarily. GR permits self-defense. You can defend yourself against the attacks of evil people in ways that you consent to others defending themselves against you in a similar case. So you can eat the other dog (who tries to eat you) if you consent to your being eaten in a similar case (where you try to ‘eat another), Even in a dog-eat-dog world, however, GR would limit how hharshly we could treat others, And it may lead us to work toward a better society ia waich everyone follows GR, (QB) What is the scope of the golden rule? D Jaman beings—or pethaps just t0 our tribe of gro to animals or things? GR says that you fa to being treated in the agents Goes “you” apply ta? Second, what redpients does “another” apply to? The Golden Rule 91 Fist, GR governs the actions of rational agents. GR forbids inconsistent action-desice combinations. GR wouldn't apply to beings who can't act ineentionally or eat consent to hypothetical actions. Second, GR deuls with how to teat seuient napents—beings capable of ‘experiences (past, preseat, of furure). GR is vacuous when we apply it 10 ronsentient objects. Consider this instance of GR (which leaves unspecified ‘what kind of being X. Don’t step on X without consenting to the idea of your being stepped on if you were in X’s exact place. ‘We can desive this instance from he genesal duties to be conscientious (co live in harmony with our moral belief) and impartial (to make similar evaluations about similar actions); neither of these duties is restricted to how we treat Juans, The instance works normally if Xis a sentient being—like a fiend, a stranger, ora dog. I care about whether Ibe stepped on if were in the place of any of these, since then being stepped on would hart me. But che instance is ‘vacuous for practical purposes if X isa sock or other nonseatient being, T don't cate about whether I be stepped on ifT were in the place of a rock. Rocks feel ‘no pain, So sep freely on rocks—but not on frends, strangers, or dogs. Consider this GR instance about torturing your dog Don’t torture your dog without consenting to the idea of your being tortured if you were in your dog's place. ‘This works like GR as applied to humans. Of course, its more difficult to understand the dog’s life and to imagine yourself in the dog's place. Those who deal with canines may find this easies; bu this example doesn't demand a subtle knowledge of dogs. So I see no season not to apply GR to animals. ‘Tm reminded of a traditional Afsican proverb: “One who is going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bied should first try it on himself to feel how it hhusts.” This suggests chat we are to apply GR to baby birds and to all other (Q9) GR helps us to see our duties toward others. Are there any’ similar principles that can help us to see our duties toward our- selves? ‘Yes, We violate consistency if we treat others as we aren't willing to be tented. But we also violate consistency if we treat sarees as we aren't willing to have others teat tbemsebes in the same situation. This is the self-regard principle. To use it effectively, we must imagine someone we care about acting as we propose to act. Here are examples. Maybe you have so much concer for your childzen that you never think of your own needs; but you aren't willing that your children live in a similar way when they grow up. Or you go through college without ‘autting much efforr into it: but you don't consent to the idea of a daughter of92 Ethics yours doing this in the same situation. Or, because you lack courage and a sense of self-worth, you refuse to seek treatment for a drug habit that’s ruining your life; but you aren't willing that your younger brother do this in a similar situation. In all these cases, you're inconsistent and violate selftegard. We tend to think of people as too selfish and too lite conceined for others, But people often factors (laziness, f it, lack of self- appreciation, lack of discipline, and so fort) can dive us into ways of living that benef neither ourselves not others. ‘Our consistenoy requirements recognize the importance of both concern for others and concemn for ourselves, GR and the setepard principle imaginatively shift the perm in the situ tion, But we also can shift the sime—and imagine that we now experience the fatuze consequences of our actions. We violate consistency if we treat ourselves (a the future) as we aren’t willing to have been treated by ourselves (in the past). Ths is the furure-regard principle. More cradely: “Don't do what you'll Inter regret” Here are examples, Maybe you cause yourself a furare hangover by yout sinking; but, whea you imagine yourself experiencing the hangover 1a, you don't consent to the idea of your having treated yourself this way. Or you eause yourself a future jail sentence by stealing; but when you picture yourself suf- fexing mnsequences naw because of your past actions, you dor’t consent to these actions. In both cases, you're inconsistent and violate fanare-regacd. (QO) The golden rule is about your treament of X. What if your action affects two others, X and Y? 1 snust satisfy che golden rule towasd both. Suppose that I own need to hire just one worker. X and Y apply, aad I have to choose between them. Both are qualified, but X more than Y. The oae I don’t pick will be disappointed, To make a choice consistently, I mast be willing for anyone co sake that choice in that sicuation—regardless of which place in the sination I imagine myself in, So if I pick X (who is more qualified) instead of Y, then I hhave to be willing that Ina be picked if I were in Y's situation. ‘The formula of universal law expresses this idea more clegandy: Formula of Universal Law: Act only as you're willing for anyone to act in the same situation, regardless of imagined variations of time of person. ‘These “imagined variations” includ someone affected by your action (GI where you're in the place of te someone you care about is in 4 future time experiencing the segard). The formula of universal law is a ‘also includes the self-regard and fature- ‘The Golden Rule 93 regard ideas, We can also express it as “Act only in ways that you find accepra- bie, regardless of where or when you imagine yourself in the situation. My “formula of universal law” is named after a farnous (but somewhat formula of the eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant. Ja many ways, my GR consistency view is a contemporary restatement of Kant’s approach to tics. (QUt) Could you sum wp your coasistency principles? (Our last chapter specified jour base consistency principles: Logicalty: Avoid inconsistent belief, Ends-meaas: Keep your means in hasmony with your ends. Conscientiousness: Keep your actions, resolutions, and desires in harmony with your moral belief. Impartiality: Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless ofthe individuals involved, “This present chapter presented four derivative principles Goldea male: Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same sinuation. Self-egatd: Treat yourtelé only as you'ze wiling to have others teat themselves in the same situation. Foture-segard: Treat yourself (in the future) only as you'r willing to have been treated by yourself (in the pas) Universal law: Act only as you're willing for anyone to actin the same sinuation, regardless of imagined variations of time or person. My former student Elizabeth Murphy suggested that we remember these by thinking of CELI FUGS (pronounced “silly says that fags aze lite ‘creatures that don’t practice conscientiousness, ends-means, logicality, and impactiality (CEL)—or future-regard, universal law, golden cule, and self- segard (FUGS). That's why they're silly. 8.5 Why follow GR? “This section is redundant, since GR follows from consistency duries that we already defended. However, some views support GR more firmly and directly than how they support consistency in general. And GR is s0 important that is ‘useful to see how it firs into different approaches to ethics. So Tl now let the Ima characters explain why they endorse GR. Tima Relativist: “I accept the golden rule as a social convention. Practically every society accepts GR, since this rule helps us to resolve social conflicts in a way that people find acceptable. A society without GR (or something equiva- lens) woulda’t survive very long.”94 Ethics Ima Subjectivist: “I accept GR because it fits my feelings. I'm an idealistic person, and thus care about people for their own sake. And I feel that the ‘world would be a beter place if we all followed GR. So I have an emotional attraction toward GR. “When I'm in my selfish mood, as I sometimes am, I can justify following, GR by appealing to self-interest. I note that: 1. People mostly teat us as we treat them. So it generally pays in teams of selfinterest to teat ochers wel. 2. Following GR promotes cooperation, which benefits everyone Gacluding myseli) Selfishness promotes conflict, which ultimately hhurts everyone (including myself 3. Following GR makes us feel good about ourselves and brings us the tespect and admiration of others 4. Violating GR brings penalties, including social disapproval and alienation from others. And society trains us to feel guile and lose self-respect when we violate GR. So self: an justify GR fairly well “Some people think intelligent crooks might promote their self-interest better by only prunding to follow GR. But this strategy usually fils. Most czooks are caught, ot live ia the fear of being caught, and end up living very “unsatiséying lives. ‘Ima Emotivist “I accept the golden mule because it accords with my feelings. agree fully with Ima Subjectivis.” Ima Idealist: “I support GR because it's sequiced by consistency and hence by rationality. And I'd lke to add to my definition of ‘ideal observer’ chat such a being would follow GR.” ‘Ima Supernaturalist: “We ought to follow the golden rule because it’s God's law. Christianity endorses GR (See Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:3 other major world religions. We are all brothers and sisters, created by a loving Father, 2 God who wants us to love one another and follow the golden zule.” 1s follow GR, because I value the kind of life, for myself and for others, Ieads 0.” Ima Inmutionis requires no further proof or justification. Almost everyone will se its correct ness tight away; and further investigations uncover no absurd consequences, 0 Jong as we formulate GR correetiy. OF course, our GR sar be proven by moze basic consistency requirements. This is usefl todo, as way of organizing our The Golden Rule 95 moral consistency principles into a system. But GR is cleaziy true in itself — ‘even without such a proof.” (I agree with Ima Intutionise) 8.6 Chapter summary Our golden rule theorem says: “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation.” To apply GR, I'd imagine myself in the other person's place on the receiving, action. GR forbids this combination: (@ I do something to another, and y ‘unwilling that this be done to me in the same situation GR doesn’t tell us what specific act to do. And it doesn’t replace regular ‘moral norms. prescribes coasistency—that we not have our actions (toward snothe:) be out of harmony with our desires (about a reversed. situation action), To apply GR adequately, we aced knowledge and imagination If we'se conscientious and impartial, then we'll follow GR—since then we won't do something to another unless we believe it would be all right—and thus believe it would be all sight ro do 9 usin the same situation —and thas aze same thing to can lead to absurdities if we are in a difrentsitaation from X or have dyfetive desies about how we are to be treated. To avoid these, ‘our GR uses a same-situation clause, a present attitude toward a hypothetical ‘The golden zule to being a global principle—a nosm comsmon to all peoples of all tims fakes a good summary of morality and a good way to “loving your neighbor.” Closely related to GR are the the formule of universal law: “Act the same simation—regardless of ‘We could base the golden rule on practically any approach to ethics. For example, we might base GR on social conventions, personal feelings, self interest, God's wil, or selfevident truths. 8.7 Study questions Give the two formulations of the golden rule theorem. Explain Kennedy's use of the golden rule. What two further factors do ‘we need to apply GR? (6.1) Explain, using the example about stealing Det’s bicycle, how GR follows from conscientiousness and impartiality In what three ways does our GR theorem differ from presctiptivism’s GR? ‘What is the literal golden rule? Give some objections to it. (8.2) Explain the “hatd of heazing” case—and how our GR formulation deals oases woe & ing your child” case—and how our GR formulation on ba canefal ahruse hare?96 Ethies 8. A murderer tell the judge: “If you were in my place, you wouldn't want to be sent to jail, Hence by the golden rule you caa’t send me t0 jail” Show how this misuaderstands the golden rule, How could the judge answer using a better understanding of the rele? 9. Could we follow GR and yet stil act wrongly? Use the “coal mine” or “Electra” example in your answer. 10, What ate the three key features of our GR formulation? 11. Explain the “masochist” objection to the golden rule—and how out view deals with ie. (8.3) 12, How widely accepted is the golden rule? (8.4) 13, What motivation would “Love your neighbor” give to GR? What three steps does GR use to apply “Love your neighbor”? 14, Children sometimes interpret GR as saying “Treat others as they treat you” How does this formula differ from the golden rule? 15, In a dog-eat-dog world, would people who follow GR necessarily be taken advantage of 16, What is GR’s scope? Does GR apply to our teatment of animals? 17, Explain the selegard and furare-regard principles. 18, How does GR apply if your action affects two other people? What is the formula of universal law? 19. What does “CELI FUGS” stand for? 20. How might one defend GR using cultural relativism, subjectivism, supemanuralises, and intuitionism? (8. 21, How might one defend GR by self-interest? 8.8 For further study To solidify your understanding, do the BthiCola exercise (see Preface) for “Bthics 08—The Golden Rule.” ‘This chapter is a condensed and simplified version of Chapters 5 and 6 of Geneler’s Formal Ethics, see this book for further details and references. GR books include Watdes's The Golden Rue (historical and religious) and Terry's Golden Rules and Silver Rates of Hamanit (scientific aspects). Neusoer and Chilton have two anthologies oa the golden rule (I have an essay in the analytical ‘volume, see Gensler 20098). Carson's Lying and Decgtion has two chapters (6 and 7) that deal with GR. For shorter discussions, see Hertler’s “Oa golden rules,” Singer's “The goldea rule,” and Cadoux’s “The implications of the golden rule.” Many of the ideas in this chapter were inspied by Hare's Freedom and Reason and Kane's Groundvork of tbe Metaphysics of Morale The Bibliography at the end of the book hes information on low to find these works. After finishing this present book, I plan to waite a comprehensive book on the golden rule, pechaps to be called The GOLDEN RULE Book. 9 Moral Rationality Moral Rational: We'ze rational in our moral judgments to the extent that we'ze consistent, informed, imaginative, and a few mote things. does moral tionality zequite? How can we pick our moral principles in st and most rational way? How can we reason about mor issue ro chapters gave part of the answer. Moral rationality requires consis- ‘tency, which includes the goldea rule. But it also requires other elements, ike knowledge and imagination. We now nced to complete the picsze. What the 9.1 Rationality conditions suggest that we're ratioaal ia our moral thinking 10 the extent that we'e (@) consistent, @) informed, (3) imaginative, and (4) a few more things, While ‘we'll never be completely rational, we can stive for greater rationality. (1) Constns, We need to be consistent in ways that we've sketched in the last two chapters, These include logicalts, ends-means consistency, conscientious- ness, impartiality, the golden rule, self-regard, faruze-regard, end the formula of weaivessal law. (Q) Informed. As far as possible, we need to know che situation, alternative ‘moral views, and ourselves. Fitst, we need to know the situation: circumstances, alternatives, conse- quences, and so on. To the extent that we'e misinformed or ignorant, our thinking is Bawed. (An exception co ths is tht it may be desirable to eliminate information that may bia or cause cognitive overload) Second, we need to lnow aemative monl views and arguments for ot + them, Out thinking is less rational if we'ze unavate of opposing views. “Pjpaly, we need cele inoviedge. We can to some depee aewalze oot biases through understanding how they originated. For example, some people are hostile toward a group because they were taught this when they were young, “Theie atitudes might chaage if they understood the source of theit hostlicy and broadened their experience. If so, chen their atimides ate less sational—since they exist because of ignorance.